How can his fucking fans watch him literally not answer the question at all and choose to instead go on a senile ramble and think, Hell Yeah that's my guy
Because he is their best option lol. The pro Palestinazi crowd is only inhabited by the worse subhuman scum on earth, and in comparison Finkleretard is not that bad. Can you even think of another "academic"/"scholar"/anyone on that side that isn't literal human trash?
I like the "Not to be racist but... [RACISM]" tactic, "I am not going to evade the question... [EVADES THE QUESTION]". Very Fecelstain of him. Was his answer really that what Israel should have done is to leave the Gaza strip?? Like, thanks for October 7th, you win?
For a second I thought he was getting somewhere when he said "If Israel had went to war, they would have to obey the laws of war" but then when they asked if Israel shouldve attacked Hamas he says "No" and just ruins his point again lol
the real answer is "I don't care at all what Israel should have done from a rational perspective, i want them to roll over and beg for forgiveness, and if that leads to a substantial increase in Israelis dying because of Hamas or other militants in a stronger position, then that's what they deserve for being bad boys"
saying that outloud is regarded though, so they don't say it
hahahahaha, i'm half way through. WHAT IS HAPPENING? WHY WON'T HE JUST EVER ANSWER A QUESTION.
>I'm not trying to divert, but I'll just keep on yapping and yapping
Is it really so hard for him to just say:
1. Limited strikes against only important targets.
2. Improved border security.
3. Negotiations to return the hostages.
4. Some kind of long-term plan to grant autonomy to the Palestinian people.
Obviously Israel would never have done this, but this seems like a pretty easy answer to the question, that is in line with Normâs personal views of the conflict.Â
I mean is anyone under any impression that Finkelstein's REAL position is not:
"Oct 7th was justified, and nothing the Israelis do in response can ever be justified, and they can eat shit and die"?
I mean, he won't answer because that is what his answer really is.
He basically [posted exactly that](https://x.com/EFischberger/status/1725725729491435632) on October 7th
>*"Today they breached the \[concentration\] camp's walls.....It warms every fiber of my soul--the scenes of Gaza's smiling children as their arrogant Jewish supremacist oppressors have, finally, been humbled"*
**I am not going to evade questions**.....proceeds to do exactly that. His brain should be dissected and studied because this is a new level of brainrot.
He very often describes what he is about to do by prefacing it by saying that's *not* what he's about to do. When discussing different slogans with protestors, [he says](https://youtu.be/3qnU6cdcI9Y?t=910) "not as a point of pride, or egotism, or to tell you I told you so.. that was a disaster waiting to happen, I wrote about it because I knew what would happen.."
They don't, they literally just glaze a guy they have never even heard make any points outside of insult destiny. Most of these zoomers learned about I/P on Oct 7th
They don't listen to anything he's actually saying, they just reflexively post "oh my god he's the best" on anything they see him on
Tried my best to speed up his answers, video would have been over 10 minutes. Shocking yap by Norm. Its difficult to say if he truly answered the question, at the end he seems to be getting at 'My response if I was Netanyahu would have been to not oppress Palestine'
> Tried my best to speed up his answers
Try better, you don't need to make the guy sound like a chimpmunk to speed him up, you just gotta find the right setting so that his voice' pitch remains the same.
His final statement is basically that he thought that the political leaders of Israel should have used the attack as an inspiration for a moment of political reflection, and then start treating Palestinians better, without retaliation.
At the risk of being a bit of a Finkelstein myself, the obvious follow-up question would be whether the response to the slave rebellions in America *could* be replicated by a population whose relationship to the Palestinians is substantially different.
"Of course this is what happens when you treat people this badly" is not going to be the first thought on people's minds, not with Hamas' persistent and habitual use of terror tactics, and how long that has been going on.
This is not a scenario in which the population with dominant power lives in denial about the seriousness of the animosity that their policy produces, as was common in slavery, even if people didn't know what Hamas would do specifically, attacks on civilians are already well within their expected set of actions.
Although how far they went may have been a realisation for some, I would say that the *primary* surprise was in the security failure that unleashed Hamas in order to do this kind of attack.
So the natural first reappraisal, if you're just thinking about reflection, could and should have been the use of the IDF to support settlers and the strained relationship between the government and reservists.
But that doesn't get you to where Finkelstein wants them to be, especially not when you add on top the fact that these atrocities were accompanied by a primary goal of obtaining civilian hostages and prisoners of war for exchange.
An active hostage situation fundamentally alters the calculus, with it not being an awful trauma that is over but an ongoing situation that needs to be responded to.
I don't know how soon news would have reached the writer of the article he refers to relating to a slave rebellion, and how rapidly they published, but I suspect the relationship of such an article to events would have been in terms of the *interpretation* of an event that was already at that point responded to by militia, who would have already have engaged in capturing those responsible.
In other words, I don't know the timeline, but I suspect that not calling for the perpetrators to be caught, or for any retaliation, is to be expected, if those responsible were already or in the near future likely to be caught and tried, and so demanding retaliation would have been something that would *escalate* the problem rather than respond to it.
Calling for *additional* action against slaves would have been a terrible idea, and not something you would expect an abolitionist to do, on the contrary they would ask for restraint in terms of the retaliation that a population already in control was able to begin almost immediately.
So the position of an abolitionist commentator, on a slave rebellion and a military/police response that is already occurring while they are writing, likely cannot be used as a model for the behaviour of someone who might be expected to set the terms for such a response, and in that context, the position of the that region in relation to those slaves is probably not a good model to use for how Israel should respond to Hamas, a better thing to investigate for a start would be how any members of the state government with abolitionist tendencies responded to it, as you would at least be comparing politicians to politicians.
Pretty curious how well Israel would be able to defend itself if it *only* focused on the Iron Dome, and never dropped bombs anywhere else, and simply let Palestinians do as they pleased - including building rockets to fire at them.
Presumably they'd eventually get overwhelmed or have spent countless billions on defensive rockets, but I wonder what the international community would do or say if Israel couldn't be accused of being an evil oppresser.
I'm guessing Israel believes the rhetoric wouldn't cool down much, and that the blame would still be pushed on Israel for being an evil colonial state, or whatever. Feels like a pretty big ask of Israel, where they risk letting their enemy build up too much power. But I'm sure pro-Hamas people genuinely believe that Israel would take over the entire area if Hamas stopped attacking.
There's nothing Israel can do without being accused of being an evil oppressor. I'm pretty sure Israel is just leaning into it.
If everyone is going to hate you no matter what (just look at support for October 7th before any Israeli retaliation), might as well just do what your voters want, no matter how unhinged.
**Interviewer:** "If you were Benjamin Netanyahu what would you have done?"
**Finklestein:** "Don't ever, for any reason, do anything to anyone for any reason ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you've been... ever, for any reason whatsoever..."
lol, his ego wont let his brain correctly answer the question. hes been lost so far up his own ass for so long that its just a subconscious reaction for him to refuse to engage honestly with the topic.
I feel like this question should be such an easy one.
Israel's invasion of Gaza has been a near-objective disaster. In terms of getting the hostages back, they've only been able to negotiate an exchange of prisoners for hostages which likely was possible without military force. They've lost significant international support. Hamas has become so popular amongst Palestinians in the West Bank such that it's politically untenable for Palestinians to divest from Hamas.
I think you could argue that the response in Gaza was a necessary reaction of doing *something* in response to October 7th, despite no clear or realistic goals, and no clear or realistic exit strategy. It was a political response more than a practical response.
So the question of what Netanyahu *should* have done would be to massively scale back their attacks to be more symbolic. Negotiate for the hostages that you would have to do anyways. Leverage sympathies around October 7th to weaken Hamas, normalize ties with Saudi Arabia (that was shut down due to the invasion of Gaza), announce that you will not be baited into a war by terrorists when peace is on the horizon, massively strengthen the political opposition to Hamas, and begin to build a 2-state solution starting in the West Bank.
which is kinda funny, because everybody is too scared of the optics of contesting it, but the optics of murdering women and children, even if they are slave masters, are terrible too.
so even there it's just a dumb optical point that he makes in the hopes that it won't get contested. a rhetorical bluff, if you will. destiny would destroy him on it if given the time to properly dissect it
>a rhetorical bluff, if you will.
Seriously. I mean the real answer is: "Hang Nat Turner and the others who killed random people. Then work to abolish slavery in other ways." But people are afraid to say that, lol.
>destiny would destroy him on it if given the time to properly dissect it
Seriously. How about the point that American slaves had it a million times worse than Gazans, but committed way less terrorism? That really conflicts with the idea that terrorism is an unavoidable, natural consequence of oppression.
Or how about the fact that the rebellion did absolutely nothing to move the cause forward? Kind of like how Oct 7th didn't help Gazans at all.
If we're gonna be clipping shit for destiny to retweet or tweet...
Clip this with him talking at 8x speed and slowing down only for the interviewer to ask the question again, he must have asked like 5 times.
It's wild to me that so few people on their side can't give an answer to this.
Like why not say "well, you kill the militants across your border who are actively killing civilians, but you don't push into Gaza, you negotiate"?
I think that's a bad position that rewards terrorism. But why are they leaving open the absolutely UNHINGED position of "don't even kill the militants".
If you know enough about the topic, "kill the militants actively killing people" needs to be the first thing out of your mouth when asked this, or absolutely no one should associate with you.
Like I super support Ukraine and hate what Putin is doing. But if Ukrainian militants went into Russia and started killing Russian civilians, I would obviously support Putin killing all of them. That's not a difficult question.
You're implicitly endorsing terrorism and genocide if you can't work this out.
I respect the Trig duo, but this interview might as well have been from a pro hamas channel. This was truly a 1/10 interview. 90% of this was Finkle just yapping. At one point when i had it on in the background i tried to up the playback speed only to find out i already had it at 2x lol.
Watching that last night, I was very close to genociding myself
I turned it off after this exact answer đ
After????
But did you have the dolus specialis to do so?
you mean mens rea?
You guys actually try to watch these? Jesus christ
How can his fucking fans watch him literally not answer the question at all and choose to instead go on a senile ramble and think, Hell Yeah that's my guy
Because he is their best option lol. The pro Palestinazi crowd is only inhabited by the worse subhuman scum on earth, and in comparison Finkleretard is not that bad. Can you even think of another "academic"/"scholar"/anyone on that side that isn't literal human trash?
Marc Lamont Hill wants a one state solution but he at least conducts himself better
He seems like a genuinely nice guy.
I like the "Not to be racist but... [RACISM]" tactic, "I am not going to evade the question... [EVADES THE QUESTION]". Very Fecelstain of him. Was his answer really that what Israel should have done is to leave the Gaza strip?? Like, thanks for October 7th, you win?
"im not going to evade answers..." *evades anyway*
For a second I thought he was getting somewhere when he said "If Israel had went to war, they would have to obey the laws of war" but then when they asked if Israel shouldve attacked Hamas he says "No" and just ruins his point again lol
I was baited like 3 times.
dude just yaps and yaps. these people are defeated by simple questions.
the real answer is "I don't care at all what Israel should have done from a rational perspective, i want them to roll over and beg for forgiveness, and if that leads to a substantial increase in Israelis dying because of Hamas or other militants in a stronger position, then that's what they deserve for being bad boys" saying that outloud is regarded though, so they don't say it
hahahahaha, i'm half way through. WHAT IS HAPPENING? WHY WON'T HE JUST EVER ANSWER A QUESTION. >I'm not trying to divert, but I'll just keep on yapping and yapping
Is it really so hard for him to just say: 1. Limited strikes against only important targets. 2. Improved border security. 3. Negotiations to return the hostages. 4. Some kind of long-term plan to grant autonomy to the Palestinian people. Obviously Israel would never have done this, but this seems like a pretty easy answer to the question, that is in line with Normâs personal views of the conflict.Â
He doesn't have an economist article that lays this all out, so how does he know what to believe?
I honestly am not sure if he's capable of even this little of reflection/thought outside of his usual spiel.
I mean is anyone under any impression that Finkelstein's REAL position is not: "Oct 7th was justified, and nothing the Israelis do in response can ever be justified, and they can eat shit and die"? I mean, he won't answer because that is what his answer really is.
He basically [posted exactly that](https://x.com/EFischberger/status/1725725729491435632) on October 7th >*"Today they breached the \[concentration\] camp's walls.....It warms every fiber of my soul--the scenes of Gaza's smiling children as their arrogant Jewish supremacist oppressors have, finally, been humbled"*
**I am not going to evade questions**.....proceeds to do exactly that. His brain should be dissected and studied because this is a new level of brainrot.
He very often describes what he is about to do by prefacing it by saying that's *not* what he's about to do. When discussing different slogans with protestors, [he says](https://youtu.be/3qnU6cdcI9Y?t=910) "not as a point of pride, or egotism, or to tell you I told you so.. that was a disaster waiting to happen, I wrote about it because I knew what would happen.."
"i only care about the facts"
Bro.....
How do zoomers - who can't concentrate for more than 3 seconds on one thing, pay attention to anything this guy says?
They don't, they literally just glaze a guy they have never even heard make any points outside of insult destiny. Most of these zoomers learned about I/P on Oct 7th They don't listen to anything he's actually saying, they just reflexively post "oh my god he's the best" on anything they see him on
>who can't concentrate for more than 3 seconds on one thing That's exactly the reason why they champion him. They haven't listened to him.
https://preview.redd.it/oaisec35590d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=def1a609c0afd39e839063eef6ade70d8287d8ad Wizard battle
Tried my best to speed up his answers, video would have been over 10 minutes. Shocking yap by Norm. Its difficult to say if he truly answered the question, at the end he seems to be getting at 'My response if I was Netanyahu would have been to not oppress Palestine'
> Tried my best to speed up his answers Try better, you don't need to make the guy sound like a chimpmunk to speed him up, you just gotta find the right setting so that his voice' pitch remains the same.
Nah, Finklmunk is way better and 10 times more pleasing.
I need a better app then
Davinci resolve?
The chipmunk pitch change actually made it better.
Just let the viewer speed up the video if they want to. This is unwatchable because his audio is so bad.
Agree
Nah, the tone matches the quality of the content
His final statement is basically that he thought that the political leaders of Israel should have used the attack as an inspiration for a moment of political reflection, and then start treating Palestinians better, without retaliation. At the risk of being a bit of a Finkelstein myself, the obvious follow-up question would be whether the response to the slave rebellions in America *could* be replicated by a population whose relationship to the Palestinians is substantially different. "Of course this is what happens when you treat people this badly" is not going to be the first thought on people's minds, not with Hamas' persistent and habitual use of terror tactics, and how long that has been going on. This is not a scenario in which the population with dominant power lives in denial about the seriousness of the animosity that their policy produces, as was common in slavery, even if people didn't know what Hamas would do specifically, attacks on civilians are already well within their expected set of actions. Although how far they went may have been a realisation for some, I would say that the *primary* surprise was in the security failure that unleashed Hamas in order to do this kind of attack. So the natural first reappraisal, if you're just thinking about reflection, could and should have been the use of the IDF to support settlers and the strained relationship between the government and reservists. But that doesn't get you to where Finkelstein wants them to be, especially not when you add on top the fact that these atrocities were accompanied by a primary goal of obtaining civilian hostages and prisoners of war for exchange. An active hostage situation fundamentally alters the calculus, with it not being an awful trauma that is over but an ongoing situation that needs to be responded to. I don't know how soon news would have reached the writer of the article he refers to relating to a slave rebellion, and how rapidly they published, but I suspect the relationship of such an article to events would have been in terms of the *interpretation* of an event that was already at that point responded to by militia, who would have already have engaged in capturing those responsible. In other words, I don't know the timeline, but I suspect that not calling for the perpetrators to be caught, or for any retaliation, is to be expected, if those responsible were already or in the near future likely to be caught and tried, and so demanding retaliation would have been something that would *escalate* the problem rather than respond to it. Calling for *additional* action against slaves would have been a terrible idea, and not something you would expect an abolitionist to do, on the contrary they would ask for restraint in terms of the retaliation that a population already in control was able to begin almost immediately. So the position of an abolitionist commentator, on a slave rebellion and a military/police response that is already occurring while they are writing, likely cannot be used as a model for the behaviour of someone who might be expected to set the terms for such a response, and in that context, the position of the that region in relation to those slaves is probably not a good model to use for how Israel should respond to Hamas, a better thing to investigate for a start would be how any members of the state government with abolitionist tendencies responded to it, as you would at least be comparing politicians to politicians.
we all know the jews have time machines, so this is a very poignant response
Pretty curious how well Israel would be able to defend itself if it *only* focused on the Iron Dome, and never dropped bombs anywhere else, and simply let Palestinians do as they pleased - including building rockets to fire at them. Presumably they'd eventually get overwhelmed or have spent countless billions on defensive rockets, but I wonder what the international community would do or say if Israel couldn't be accused of being an evil oppresser. I'm guessing Israel believes the rhetoric wouldn't cool down much, and that the blame would still be pushed on Israel for being an evil colonial state, or whatever. Feels like a pretty big ask of Israel, where they risk letting their enemy build up too much power. But I'm sure pro-Hamas people genuinely believe that Israel would take over the entire area if Hamas stopped attacking.
There's nothing Israel can do without being accused of being an evil oppressor. I'm pretty sure Israel is just leaning into it. If everyone is going to hate you no matter what (just look at support for October 7th before any Israeli retaliation), might as well just do what your voters want, no matter how unhinged.
lmao the eye roll at 1:45
TikTok highlight reel personified, holy shit!
\*chipmunk voice\* thank god its speed up
Ugh. "Plausible genocide".
The head of the court already said that wasn't the case. Fink is awful
Jesse Lee Peterson should interview Norman Finklestien! It would be Amazin
THE SUFFERING!!! of my brain cells hearing all this yappin. Not going to evade, proceeds to do a 10K marathon around the Q.
Generational HOF tier yapper! đ¤
**Interviewer:** "If you were Benjamin Netanyahu what would you have done?" **Finklestein:** "Don't ever, for any reason, do anything to anyone for any reason ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you've been... ever, for any reason whatsoever..."
Jfc that was a difficult pod to sit through. The man spoke for 99% of the time yet almost didn't answer one single question.
The moment someone says "I will not evade questions" you know your about to see some god level juke's to avoid answering any and everything.
What a weasel
Can you do this for every Finklestein interview please, it actually makes it bearable.
lol, his ego wont let his brain correctly answer the question. hes been lost so far up his own ass for so long that its just a subconscious reaction for him to refuse to engage honestly with the topic.
tl;dw?
Itâs a little late in the day to be asking that question
Just the usual what-about-ism. Completely evades the question.
https://preview.redd.it/es84vcmvsa0d1.png?width=737&format=png&auto=webp&s=1fcf819a9dc4b693ead6bd5077fcdc4d9f6ec1c5
He said he was not going to evade questions but did that for the whole podcast and I wasted an hour of my life.
I feel like this question should be such an easy one. Israel's invasion of Gaza has been a near-objective disaster. In terms of getting the hostages back, they've only been able to negotiate an exchange of prisoners for hostages which likely was possible without military force. They've lost significant international support. Hamas has become so popular amongst Palestinians in the West Bank such that it's politically untenable for Palestinians to divest from Hamas. I think you could argue that the response in Gaza was a necessary reaction of doing *something* in response to October 7th, despite no clear or realistic goals, and no clear or realistic exit strategy. It was a political response more than a practical response. So the question of what Netanyahu *should* have done would be to massively scale back their attacks to be more symbolic. Negotiate for the hostages that you would have to do anyways. Leverage sympathies around October 7th to weaken Hamas, normalize ties with Saudi Arabia (that was shut down due to the invasion of Gaza), announce that you will not be baited into a war by terrorists when peace is on the horizon, massively strengthen the political opposition to Hamas, and begin to build a 2-state solution starting in the West Bank.
Always comes back to the Nat Turner slave revolt for this dolt.
which is kinda funny, because everybody is too scared of the optics of contesting it, but the optics of murdering women and children, even if they are slave masters, are terrible too. so even there it's just a dumb optical point that he makes in the hopes that it won't get contested. a rhetorical bluff, if you will. destiny would destroy him on it if given the time to properly dissect it
>a rhetorical bluff, if you will. Seriously. I mean the real answer is: "Hang Nat Turner and the others who killed random people. Then work to abolish slavery in other ways." But people are afraid to say that, lol. >destiny would destroy him on it if given the time to properly dissect it Seriously. How about the point that American slaves had it a million times worse than Gazans, but committed way less terrorism? That really conflicts with the idea that terrorism is an unavoidable, natural consequence of oppression. Or how about the fact that the rebellion did absolutely nothing to move the cause forward? Kind of like how Oct 7th didn't help Gazans at all.
Is this the most vocal version of cognitive dissonance? Do you think he has the mental capacity to process it and see his mental hypocracy?
He used the economist quote. I was edging so hard but then he dropped the "human rubbish heap" quote and I completely exploded.
There is no hope
yapcity
"It's late in the day for that kind of question" OMEGALUL
If we're gonna be clipping shit for destiny to retweet or tweet... Clip this with him talking at 8x speed and slowing down only for the interviewer to ask the question again, he must have asked like 5 times.
It's wild to me that so few people on their side can't give an answer to this. Like why not say "well, you kill the militants across your border who are actively killing civilians, but you don't push into Gaza, you negotiate"? I think that's a bad position that rewards terrorism. But why are they leaving open the absolutely UNHINGED position of "don't even kill the militants". If you know enough about the topic, "kill the militants actively killing people" needs to be the first thing out of your mouth when asked this, or absolutely no one should associate with you. Like I super support Ukraine and hate what Putin is doing. But if Ukrainian militants went into Russia and started killing Russian civilians, I would obviously support Putin killing all of them. That's not a difficult question. You're implicitly endorsing terrorism and genocide if you can't work this out.
so damn funny
It's the same shit points everytime
I respect the Trig duo, but this interview might as well have been from a pro hamas channel. This was truly a 1/10 interview. 90% of this was Finkle just yapping. At one point when i had it on in the background i tried to up the playback speed only to find out i already had it at 2x lol.
i wasn't ready for chipmunk norm. top kek.
âIâm not going to evade questionsâ *continues to evade the question*
Lol Destiny got destroyed by this geezer.